Mr. Scott Bratton is a Partner at Margaret Wong and Associates Co, LPA. His practice includes removal defense, political asylum, federal litigation, consular processing, criminal law, and assistance in business and family based visas. Mr. Bratton is an experienced litigator who practices regularly in courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Bratton received his BA in Business Management from Ohio Northern University in 1993 and his JD from the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 1997. Prior to joining Margaret wong & Associates, Mr. Bratton was a partner in the law firm of Bratton & Ratliff Co., LPA.
He has been named a Leading Lawyer by Inside Business Magazine on numerous occasions and an Ohio Super Lawyer. Mr. Bratton has also been selected for inclusion in the 2010-12 editions of The Best Lawyers in America in immigration law. He has practiced immigration law for over eleven years and has been the attorney of record on numerous precedent-setting cases, including Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662, 675 (7th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Liao v. Rabbett, 398 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2005), Singh v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 2006), Madrigal v. Holder, 572 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. 2009), Wu v. Holder, 561 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2009), and Iao v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2005), which has been discussed in numerous newspaper and law review articles. He has also been a frequent speaker at immigration conferences, including annually at the national conference for the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Additionally, Mr. Bratton is on the adjunct facult at the Cleveland Marshall College of Law. Mr. Bratton is also an Adjunct Faculty member at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
Nwakanma v. Ashcroft, 352 F3d 325 (6th Cir. 2003) — This was the first case in the Sixth Circuit that held that an alien can obtain a stay of voluntary departure from a federal appellate court while pursuing a petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. It also set forth the standard for a stay of voluntary departure.
Liao v. Rabbett, 398 F3d 389 (6th Cir. 2005) — The Sixth Circuit overturned the decision of the Board and held that an Ohio fifth-degree felony state drug possession conviction was not an aggravated felony. This case was utilized by many aliens in the Sixth Circuit to avoid the aggravated felony classification. An aggravated felony conviction bars most relief from removal. I have had several clients who were granted relief from removal because of this decision.
Iao v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2005) — The Seventh Circuit overturned the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals on the issue of asylum eligibility for a Falun Gong practitioner from China. In addition to criticizing the decision of the Agency in this case, the Seventh Circuit discussed how things that occurred in this case were happening in other cases. The Iao case has been cited in the New York Times and numerous law review and other immigration articles.
Madrigal v. Holder, 572 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. 2009) — This case held that the regulation barring review of a motion to reopen appeal is not applicable where the alien was deported while the appeal was pending.
Singh v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 2006) — In this case, the Sixth Circuit overtruned the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and held that the fraud of the parents cannot be imputed to their child. My client had been ordered removed for fraud at the time of her entry. She was a minor at the time and the fraud was actually committed by her parents. As a result of the decision, removal proceedings were terminated.
State v. Yahya, 2011-Ohio-06090 (Ohio App.10th Dist. 2011) — The appellate court held that even if the trial court warns a defendant of possible deportation as a result of a guilty plea, defense counsel may be ineffective if he or she provides contrary, incorrect advice.
Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662, 675 (7th Cir. 2013) (en banc). — Holding that young, Albania women constitute a particular social group for asylum.